This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
"context, nature and substance of the work and conclusions"
And didn't even look at the evidence in doing so. Yeah. Let's tie ourselves to THAT sinking ship.
Ken Starr recommended impeachment (I don’t remember the exact words he used, but the gist was a recommendation of impeachment), but he was operating under a different statute and had a different scope of work.
Mueller said Barr “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of his report. He did say it was wrong, and in pretty harsh words for DC-speak, hence Barr saying the letter was “snitty,” and assuming it was written and sent out by an underling. Also, Mueller did not send Barr a letter that he didn’t ok first, as evinced by his signature on the bottom.
But the House is under zero obligation to undertake such a recommendation making it rather meaningless. All it was was cover for the House making it a political act, not a legal one.
I know. But I have no doubt that when Mueller and Barr talked, Mueller probably highlighted the fact that the media was getting it all wrong. Of course, that is not the substance of his complaint to Barr but rather the effect. Barr's failure to capture the actual context, nature and substance of the work and conclusions directly resulted in the media getting it wrong.
I don't think Mueller punted to Barr. I think he was blindsided by the conclusion that Barr drew from his report (which he likely does not agree with). That's why he wrote the letter.
Mueller made it clear that it is not in the purview of the DOJ to prosecute and Barr is DOJ. He pretty unambiguously did not punt to Barr.
Mueller is an honourable guy. He stays in his lane. He didn't need to "recommend" anything to Congress. It was all laid out in a paint by numbers fashion in his report. The obstruction is plain as day.
1. Yes, Mueller was hired by RR after Comey's firing
You left out the swear word here. That was to indicate just how serious Herb is/was.
no. but I'm not going to get into it with you because I know you haven't read the actual report.
Yes on the first point.
Like I said, unless Mueller comes out and says Barr is wrong I think Trump is the big winner here.
This looks to be the precursor to the Executive Privilege court battle to come. What's weird to me about it is that knowing they wrote this letter (and they would exert EP), why did they use the we never exerted EP line in their talking points? It seems like it makes exerting it now that much worse.
Someone asked yesterday why Barr would write the letter he did when he knew the report would come out eventually.
i said "know" not "assume".
I agree. But I suspect that Mueller will not, as he will remain true to what his mandate was. I think the most he will likely say is that his office did not consider the question of whether obstruction can be made out where the underlying crime cannot be proven to the requisite legal standard.
Yep. And the reason Barr was never going to release the summaries is that, even on conspiracy, the summaries paint a bad picture for Trump. They had multiple contacts with the Russians, knew that Russians were going to hack the election in their favour, and knew they would ultimately benefit. The SCO just couldn't establish that they actually helped them do it or, in the case of Junior for example, they were too stupid to know what they were doing was wrong.
Nope, but I don’t think he was up there acting as a legit law talking guy. When you’re an AG making stuff up for Congress, I would imagine you want to use as many vague, non-legal terms as possible.
And today Cohen brought a bucket of KFC. This is the real story people!!!!Sheriff Bart said:
Even though he didn't review the evidence of the case. This is still the most amazing thing from yesterday. It hadn't even entered my mind as possibly being true, yet here we are.
This is the sort of hyperbole that makes discussion in here impossible sometimes. I’m surprised to hear it coming from you, since I’ve found you pretty thoughtful up to now.
- Mueller.
It's crystal clear what Mueller said. It's written in black and white. He doesn't have to say a word. The only "disagreement" here is how anyone gives credibility to people who are attempting to misconstrue his words intentionally. Someone asked why the Barr letter came out that early. This is exactly why. It was the smoke bomb in the middle of the battlefield.
I think it's kind of obvious. It took too long to redact too. But a two year investigation and 474 page report plus underlying evidence outside the report can't be consumed and distilled into a two page summary of a prosecuting decision in roughly 14 hours. Can't do it.
I just assumed he had some minions going over it with him. I guess I am still a bit naive....I only have myself to blame
Oh, memoranda? No wayy...I just assumed he had some minions going over it with him. I guess I am still a bit naive....I only have myself to blame
I do t think the disagreement is about what Mueller “meant”. I think the question is why he did what he did.
Lighten up Francis, It was tongue in cheek and I’ve wrapped it with what I think are engaging comments. But frankly speaking i have absolutely heard these claims on this board, from pundits on tv and from some of the wackier politicians on cnn.
The White House has already switched to openly attacking Mueller again and that will happen soon enough.
I agree. I hope that once he does testify people will take his word as gospel. Regardless of what that means moving forward.
